Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:56 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Fair enough. But surely that means that the cost should fall over the coming years?

In theory yes, but what timescale "the coming years" reflects is obviously the key. It all depends on the expected time it takes for the initial investment to be recouped - might be 10, 20 even 50 years in some cases.

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:39 pm  

Sarf Essex Taff wrote:

He must be doing something right given the foaming at the mouth front page of the Daily mail today

It was a bit, wasn't it?

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:38 pm  

Mintball wrote:

One rather hopes that the the veiled threats from the energy companies might have a backlash – not least since they are, in many cases, foreign-owned, so you have an entire idea of furrin companies holding the country to ransom etc.

Doesn't make privatisation look any better either.

A lot of the public response by the energy companies is kneejerk. But behind the scenes the energy companies, especially the foreign owned ones, will be carrying out a more sober assessment of Labour's policies. They're unlikely to conclude that investing in additional generating capacity in the UK is a more attractive proposition today than it was yesterday.

He could have gotten away with pledges to tighten up the regulatory system. The energy companies would still grumble, but as long as they know the rules of the game they can usually live with it and make sensible decisions.

Its the shock of the price fix that well send them running to the hills (or more accurately diverting investment to the rest of Europe). A decision to fix prices two years ahead, when nobody has any idea what the market conditions will be at that time, removes any stability from the industry. If they can announce a price fix now, what might they announce next?

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 5:08 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

A lot of the public response by the energy companies is kneejerk. But behind the scenes the energy companies, especially the foreign owned ones, will be carrying out a more sober assessment of Labour's policies. They're unlikely to conclude that investing in additional generating capacity in the UK is a more attractive proposition today than it was yesterday.

He could have gotten away with pledges to tighten up the regulatory system. The energy companies would still grumble, but as long as they know the rules of the game they can usually live with it and make sensible decisions.

Its the shock of the price fix that well send them running to the hills (or more accurately diverting investment to the rest of Europe). A decision to fix prices two years ahead, when nobody has any idea what the market conditions will be at that time, removes any stability from the industry. If they can announce a price fix now, what might they announce next?

The energy companies' response is typical of a bunch of robber barons, unused to having themselves held up to scrutiny. The city won't like it either, they'll have fewer opportunities to make money on swaps and short-selling. Well fook 'em, if they want to invest money, let them invest in embryonic companies, that may stand a chance of creating employment.

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:25 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I'm bemused as to why renewable, clean energy should cost more?

In the case of wind because you also need to build conventional power stations to generate electricty for the 75% of the time the wind is too weak or strong for the wind-turbines. Even when the wind blows there is relatively large capital investment per unit of production - each wiind turbine producing a piddling amount of electricity. Then there the problem that the wind may not blow when demand is their in the grid and that means if you are not to waste the dribbles you need to develop and invest in storage technologies. In short wind energy is not a viable way to keep our current economic system / infrastructure afloat.

The only immediately available green energy generators that could do that are nuclear fission reactors. They bring with them a degree of controvesy and potential strategic risk.

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:30 am  

Derwent wrote:

...

For gas we are the 2nd lowest price in the whole of Europe with only Romania being cheaper.

But how many of them have their own gas supplies?

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:17 am  

Cibaman wrote:

... He could have gotten away ...

But only in the US.

Cibaman wrote:

... Its the shock of the price fix ...

It's not been any sort of "fix" in recent years when the companies have all put their prices up at the same time, and by approximately the same amount, fortunately.

And it's no sort of a "fix" to make the tariffs so complex that it makes it difficult for people to find the 'best' deal. After all, simple tariffs would not be possible, so they've not been deliberately made opaque.

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:51 am  

Dally wrote:

In the case of wind because you also need to build conventional power stations to generate electricty for the 75% of the time the wind is too weak or strong for the wind-turbines. Even when the wind blows there is relatively large capital investment per unit of production - each wiind turbine producing a piddling amount of electricity. Then there the problem that the wind may not blow when demand is their in the grid and that means if you are not to waste the dribbles you need to develop and invest in storage technologies. In short wind energy is not a viable way to keep our current economic system / infrastructure afloat.

The only immediately available green energy generators that could do that are nuclear fission reactors. They bring with them a degree of controvesy and potential strategic risk.

I don't know where you got the 75% downtime from, the figures I've read suggest the opposite, i.e. the turbine being active for approx 75% of the time, often more.
Regarding the wind being too strong ... as the wind speed increases, the pitch of the blades on a modern turbine automatically offer gradually less resistance until, in a very (!) high wind, the blades don't rotate at all. But that very high wind is very rare indeed, on most commercial turbines the wind has to be well over 120mph before the wind is too strong.
At the opposite end of the scale, it is true that on a very calm day, a wind farm can be at a standstill due to lack of wind.
It's rare for this to be the case over the entire country at the same time but it is still true that wind turbines are not the sole answer to our energy requirements ... no-one says they are, but they can be and are a useful part of the mix.
And, a 7mW turbine, producing enough electricity for 2,000 homes isn't really piddling, is it?

Many people would argue that nuclear fission is not a "green" generator.

Don't be misled by Bernard Ingham's ill-informed bluster.

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:26 am  

Mmm, I seem to remember prices being regulated under Thatcher and Major, so how is it different now?

Energy companies want grandfathered pricing for 40 years when developing power stations to make them worthwhile, why can't they make the same arrangements for 20 months on the otherside?

The one notable absence of doom mongers is EDF, a French company who make money in their own country where they have price regulation.

Re: When will Labour ditch Ed M? : Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:43 am  

Mandelson's now joined the band of Miliband critics. That should be reason enough for Ed to continue. So far all the moaners and frothers are waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy eclipsed by those in favour and last time I looked, energy companies do not get a ballot paper in a general election